This post is long overdue.
One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.
Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.
Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?
As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?
Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?
If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.
After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.
That’s a very strong claim. On what basis are you making it?
if you start with subjective humans you can’t get to objective morality,
What justification do you have for starting with humanity?
peace
??
Given the vast differences in what is considered morally right and wrong from one culture to another, and over time within a single culture (not to mention within a single individual), Acartia concludes that it is not objective.
revelation 😉
revelation 😉
if you disagree please present your evidence
peace
That’s a falsehood. You know better, but you say it anyways.
According to us, it would be murder to unplug a bot if/when that bot has self-awareness, emotions, etc as evolved carbon-based persons do.
What we didn’t say at the time is that it’s typical bigotry, carelessness, and/or malice for you to unthinkingly assume it’s fine for you to unplug a bot because you stupidly assume that, if god didn’t give it a soul at birth, it’s not really murder. (And of course, god reveals to you that it never has and never will give souls to silicon-based persons, right? Right!)
Good excuse, dude, still murder.
Think about it all you want, we won’t call it murder. Just don’t commit murder, or we will call you a murderer as you warrant.
I guess the irony of those two statements does not bother you.
You are like a 5 year old child.
No!
Revelation!
No!
Add as many smiley faces as you want, it’s still obnoxious behavior. You then go on to demand evidence. You don’t appear to know the meaning of the word.
There is no irony unless you claim revelation is impossible.
Such a bold claim requires evidence what have you got?
peace
And you just reinforced my point. You know that there can be no such thing as a self aware entity that is not human, therefore it would not trouble you to delete such an entity were it within your power. We are not disagreeing you know!
And the worst of it is that you appear to be proud of that fact.
You know that no such entity can be self aware, something that one day could be of critical importance to humanity, via revelation, but don’t know if you’d push 1 person off a bridge to save 5 from a train?
ha
I’ll be right on that once you’ve disproven that there is a teapot in orbit around jupiter.
fifthmonarchyman,
So the fact that societies are helped by ‘moral’ behaviour is a downside?
Well, I’d agree that the world is not helped by an excess of human flourishing. This is pretty much why I reject the ‘black-or-white’ positioning of theists on moral questions. I don’t think there is an absolute right answer even in principle, because there is nothing that has only one consequence.
I’m completely agnostic when it comes to that claim.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
What justification do I have with presupposing objective morality?
In some sense, I agree with WJM in that we all proceed as if morality was objective. But we do this in light of the fact that all evidence is against it.
Whatever gave you that idea? There are self-aware things that are not human. just no self-aware bots
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I feel that my urge to pee is different from my urge to make love. Do I need to provide evidence for that? You are the one making the claim – that moral sense minus God equates with pie flavour preference. Can you back it up? Either way, it is certainly not how I perceive the respective senses.
That is pretty much the definition of subjective,
I rest my case
peace
I hereby reopen it:
Your faith that god is infallibly revealing knowledge to you is also entirely subjective. You cannot demonstrate this to be objectively true, not even to yourself – since you have no way of demonstrating between your experiences of revelations being genuine, or very elaborate halluscinations or illusions. In other words, you have ALSO not solved the problem of solipsism.
It is based entirely on faith, a presupposition you volitionally put before everything else you subjectively believe in addition to it.
Also, there is no such thing as “virtuous” circularity. All logical reasoning that is circular, is viciously circular. Any argument to the contrary betrays an intellectual and emotional double standard (no, you can’t be “virtuously” hypocritical), erected out of fear of being proven wrong and having your faith shaken/challenged or destroyed.
fifthmonarchyman,
You haven’t made one. Basically, you were saying that one subjective thing is exactly the same as another. And now declare victory when I disagree!
Allan Miller,
fmm – let me restore the entire comment:
Is there a way in which you don’t subjectively perceive the respective senses?
Do you subjectively perceive them as the same?
Or do you think you would subjectively perceive them as the same if you were me?
It’s like talking to a lawyer. If if’s called a bot it’s probably not self aware. And if we created it, it’s not organic, because we can’t do that. So there’s nothing self aware that humanity has created, right, organic or otherwise? Is that sufficiently clear or do I have to cover yet more edge cases to get you to actually admit what you think?
I agree there are currently no self aware bots. What I am saying is this:
If someone claimed they had a self aware construct that could demonstrate its self awareness, and you had to make a choice to turn it off or not you would turn it off just to save some electricity. And you’d do that because no “bot” or “entity of software” can be self aware by definition. So it would not be an ethical consideration for you. As no “bot” can be self-aware, by definition.
And you *know* that no bot can be self-aware because *revelation*.
Is that all correct, or do you disagree with something?
There are ways that someone might perceive those senses differently than you do.
check it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urolagnia
I perceive them as more different than some things but less different than others. spirit and matter are more different for example as are life and death.
I can’t infallibly say what “different” means when you use the term.
I know very little about you and I’m not willing to make that sort of judgement about your personal sensations.
peace
Depends on what you mean by “create”. If you mean program or mechanically build then yes we can’t create self-aware things by definition.
Yes the presence of a “self” necessarily requires that a thing not be physically determined ie not algorithmic. It’s definitional
peace
You know this how exactly? be specific.Assertion is not argument
please demonstrate this with out resorting to circular reasoning
Excuse me, I have demonstrated it to myself. Or rather God has demonstrated it to me. If you disagree that this is possible please present your case.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
The sexual stimulation certain individuals obtain from ‘watersports’ is not relevant to the perceptual difference between being sexually aroused and having a full bladder. Regardless of one’s tastes for ‘golden showers’, there is a difference between the two sensations. Surely I don’t need to explain this to another human being?
So moral sensations are not the same as your preference for a certain type of pie, in perception. Therefore, what case were you resting?
I mean ‘not the same’. I mean that if someone says that actions one may deem ‘wrong’ are [or ‘should’ be] no different from pie choice, in the sensations they evoke in observers, I feel complelled to disagree and say ‘actually, they are different’.
Which leaves us with the apparent admission that there is a difference, which even atheists are sensible of, between actions which excite our moral senses and those which are a matter of ‘taste’. Glad we could finally agree.
no they are the same in some senses and different in others Just as preferences in pie are different than preferences in cake but they are also the same
You need to demonstrate that preferences in pie are ontologicly different than differences in moral choices. You have with your own comments demonstrated that they are not different in your worldview
peace
You cannot run away from the truth of these statements by asking me how I know it to be true. And you know it to be true. By doing this mindless asking “how do you know this” routine you are demonstrating intellectual cowardice.
You cannot present me with logically valid solutions to the problems I presented you with. That is why the kind of faith you have is called presuppositionalism. You PRE-SUPPOSE these things. Fuck, even presuppositional apologists and theologians, the people from whom you got this particular brand of belief, agree with this, which is why they themselves call it presuppositionalism.
That is simply what the term means. Either you agree that there is such a thing as hypocricy, and that we can both be guilty of it depending on the circumstance, or we stop communicating entirely.
You don’t get to hold yourself to a different standard than me simply because you believe it is virtous to do so when you do it on behalf of the god you believe in. It is despicable and betrays intellectual cowardice.
What prevents me from simply doing the same to you? I could simply assert that according to my atheism, it is “virtous” to use circular reasoning in defense of atheism, and that it is “viscious” to use circular reasoning that does NOT lead to, or work in defense of, atheism. But you see I don’t do that. I don’t believe there’s a different standard for me, that just so happens to curiously work in my favor, that somehow makes me not guilty of hypocricy. Or my own hypocricy less sinful or something.
Due, work with me here. We HAVE to agree to hold each other to the same standard. I’m pleading with you to show me there is still some part of you left that agrees that the sin of hypocricy applies equally to the both of us, whether we are believers or not or whether we are trying to produce more believers in god or not. The standard MUST apply to both of us.
If we cannot agree to this I want nothing to do with you, because you will have left the world of logic and reason. That means the only thing that matters to you is the end: Belief in a god. And that you don’t care how people come to that, that you don’t even care about what is really true. That you define truth, a priori, to be that which leads to god.
If that is really so, then we are done. We cannot talk to each other. Then you have effectively shielded yourself off from ever being persuaded, by any means, out of your current beliefs.
Your faith that god is infallibly revealing knowledge to you is also entirely subjective. You cannot demonstrate this to be objectively true, not even to yourself – since you have no way of demonstrating between your experiences of revelations being genuine, or very elaborate halluscinations or illusions. In other words, you have ALSO not solved the problem of solipsism.
It is based entirely on faith, a presupposition you volitionally put before everything else you subjectively believe in addition to it.
Also, there is no such thing as “virtuous” circularity. All logical reasoning that is circular, is viciously circular. Any argument to the contrary betrays an intellectual and emotional double standard (no, you can’t be “virtuously” hypocritical), erected out of fear of being proven wrong and having your faith shaken/challenged or destroyed.
How did you do that? Tell me. And tell me how you know that you succeeded.
And if you’re going to just answer, in the usual mindless fashion, that “god revealed it to you”. Then please just skip it and progress to telling me how you know the answer to the next question “how do you know that god revealed it to you?”
How do you know that?
See what I’m doing here? I’m using your own reasoning against you. If you fail to answer my question in a way that actually proves that you know what you claim to know, then you are holding your faith to a standard that is lower than you would ask of others to prove other statements or claims of knowledge. This would make you guilty of hypocricy. A hypocrite. Which I’m lead to believe is a sin. Which I take to imply means neither atheists, nor theist believers, are ever allowed to be hypocrites. So no, you can’t be “virtously” hypocritical.
So stop being hypocritical and actually answer my questions. And when you fail (and fail you will), stop being a presuppositionalist. It is the most dishonest, vacuous and cowardly type of religious faith there is.
Do you think such a thing is impossible? If so demonstrate it.
No, I don’t ask atheists to prove that they know something. I ask them how they can know. Do you see the difference?
I can know if God reveals it. I’m sure you would agree with this.
I would agree with you on this count. What I would object to is you is saying that circular reasoning is wrong and using circular reasoning to justify the claim.
like that
peace
Because if God has not spoken knowledge is impossible.
If you disagree please explain how you can know anything without God’s revelation.
That is an honest request it’s not a debate trick.
peace
Funny ,you believe that starting with subjective humans you can get to the source of objective morality.
no.
Please pay attention this is important.
I don’t start with subjective humans I start with God the only being whose moral opinions are objective by definition.
God reveals objective morality to us.
We either accept it or suppress and reject it.
peace
I don’t see how I could. I don’t understand how you can know that it is god revealing something to you.
How does that work? When god reveals something to you (I assume you believe this happens in your life?), how does it take place? After it has happened, how do you know it was god that “did it”?
What reasoning do you use to determine that? How do you know it wasn’t an elaborate deception? How do you know you’re not a brain in a vat, being fed false information by a malevolent researcher “outside the matrix”?
How do you know that?
if you don’t understand something does that mean it’s impossible? Do you fully understand how QM works? If not does that mean it’s not possible?
Because God does not lie. If he did all knowledge would be impossible.
It’s a hypothesis on my part. I test it here every time I ask how an atheist can know something. I’m at close to the 5 sigma threshold.
peace
You seem confused. I don’t claim it is impossible. I’m not asking what is possible, I’m asking you how you know what you claim to know. I’m asking for understanding. I cannot be convinced to just mindlessly accept claims if I don’t understand them. That doesn’t mean I sit here and believe the claims to be false until demonstrated otherwise. But it does mean I believe the claims to be unsubstantiated.
You didn’t answer my question. God not being a liar by definition, does not explain how it is you know that you are not in the matrix. All your claim here entails is that, whoever might be feeding you misinformation (if it is misinformation), therefore isn’t god. Do you see?
So how do you know there is not a misinformer misinforming you, and God allowing it to happen? How do you know it isn’t Satan, for example?
See this What is Truth?.
OK then fine
I know because God has revealed it to me. That is how I know anything.
fair enough but if you want understanding you are asking the wrong person.
quote:
For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;
(Pro 2:6)
end quote:
you might try asking him
It also entails that if I know anything at all that knowledge is from God.
It’s God or absurdity. There is absolutely no middle ground.
I know this and as a necessary implication I know that God exists and that therefore knowledge is possible.
Satan misinforming me that knowledge is possible because God exists and can reveal himself to me?
I hope you see the absurdity of that position.
quote:
Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
(Mat 12:25-26)
end quote:
peace
.
Do you really need a 20 minute you-tube video to answer a simple question like “how do you know that?”.
Man that is some worldview you got going there.
Occam must be rolling over in his grave
I’ll check it out when i get a minute.
peace
Elizabeth,
Except that collectively, You, Allan, Neil, keep denying you believe they are accidents, yet not one of you can articulate where you do think they came from.
If life on Earth is just accidents, how could morals be any different. Talk about equivocating.
So you think unknown origin = accident. Go away and learn some logic. Don’t come back till you have.
Ah, if only you had Picard’s power to Make It So.
Yes.
The shortness of the question does not entail that the answer is simple.
This didn’t answer my question. You are just mindlessly repeating this as a mantra. It has zero explanatory power. Talking to you is like talking to a robot that was programmed to give that answer, without having any understanding of why that is the answer you give or what it means, why it is true or how it works.
I was asking:
That’s just great. So you basically admit to believe, on faith and zero understanding, the very foundation for what it means for something to be knowledge, or true.
I guess I now know the extend of vacuousness of presuppositionalism.
And how do you know those are the words of God? -> God reveals that to you. (Right?) How do you know it’s God revealing it to you? -> You say that by definition God cannot lie. -> But how do you know, then, that it’s not another entity, a lying one, that is “revealing” falsehoods to you?
I just did. Nothing happens. How long should I wait for an answer before I can be confident that I didn’t get one? Should I wait my entire life?
No, god not telling lies does not entail that you knowing something means it was from god. It simply does not follow. After all, it is logically possoble there could be other ways to get knowledge than speaking to god.
If your response is that only god has the power to reveal knowledge, then you’re simply begging the question.
Prove it.
How?
How?
You have lost track of what we were talking about there.
I was asking “how do you know you’re not a brain in a vat?”.
And how do you know those are the words of God? -> God reveals that to you. (Right?) How do you know it’s God revealing it to you? -> You say that by definition God cannot lie. -> But how do you know, then, that it’s not another entity, a lying one, that is “revealing” falsehoods to you, with God merely abstaining from communication for the moment?
fifthmonarchyman,
Don’t you see even the tiniest hint of subjectivism (and all its attendant horrors!) in this view?
fifthmonarchyman,
If you’re going to use big words you could try and spell them correctly. I have demonstrated that they are different according to my perception of them. This is ‘different in my worldview’.
This is how we got down this burrow: you argued that the subjectivist has no basis for ‘moral outrage’ over some questions, because they do not experience moral outrage over your choice of pie. But they evince a different response in the individual, irrespective of their worldview, so why should I accept your conflation of the two distinct arenas?
You have not articulated why moral outrage is more appropriate for things that (you think) God deprecates than for things that piss you personally off. Care to try? Why would someone get justifiably worked up on God’s behalf, but not over things they merely find ‘wrong’ themselves?
phoodoo,
I have articulated it several times. Natural Selection of a particular set of capacities within a social species, in brief – empathy, a desire to conform, the capacity to learn opprobrium of transgressors of local norms. That is not adequately conveyed by your dismissive ‘accidents’. Of course, the mutations on which selection acts are not planned. In my view. But the whole is not adequately conveyed by ‘accidents’.
ie, A, B and C have all denied X. But if X, how …
Exactly. It doesn’t matter how “objectively real” God is, if there is no objective (i.e. in the normal scientific science of “can be independently verified by other observers”) way of determining whether a communication is from that God or not.
This point has been made a gazillion times and I’m not aware of an person making the “objective divine morality” argument who has tackled it.
Let’s posit for the sake of argument that there is an objective divine morality (whatever that means).
What practical difference does it make whether we believe that to be the case or not?
Given that there is no objective way of finding out what it entails in terms of our actual behaviour?
Allan Miller,
Of course natural selection is accidents, in a Darwinian world. This is what your side always tries to hide, but its impossible. Accidents, and some live. That is all your theory really says when you boil it down.
One has to wonder why your side continually tries to obfuscate this reality when it is embarrassing.
Elizabeth,
What practical difference does it make to decide if what you think is an accidental illusion or real?
Its makes a difference to a lot of people, people who are contemplative.
And it even affects how many people live thier lives. I suspect it would have affected Hitler, and Pol Pot and Mussolini, and Mao, and Kan, and a lot of people, if they thought what they were doing was actually, factually immoral, wrong, punishable, according to the force which created the world they live in.
That doesn’t mean religious people can’t also do wrong. Religious people can also ignore what’s in their heart. That is free will.
phoodoo,
It is not obfuscation, it is simply that I disagree that ‘accidents’ conveys the process adequately. I do not consider it ‘accidental’ if the type producing the greater number of offspring comes to render the lesser extinct, any more than I think it ‘accidental’ that a sieve retains larger objects. One is allowed to disagree, is one not?
What you seem to prefer, if we are in the linguistic dismissal business, is the arbitrary whim of a tyrant, which you justify by feebly declaring this being incapable of doing anything arbitrary by definition. One has to wonder why your side continually tries to obfuscate this reality when it is embarrassing.
phoodoo,
Can I be the first to welcome Herr Hitler to the thread? Pull up a chair, Adolf. You know everyone, I presume? How’s the missus?
No, that is not what I asked.
I’m sorry, but that’s not how “by definition” actually works.
Why can’t we create self aware things in principle? Is it because only your god can? Or do you have an actual real reason other then “by definition” or “it was revealed”?